|
  Stop wasting GC's time. |
05/22/09 12:43:18 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Mogarl |
I am not going to QQ about the state of the game right now,
because, its fine to be honest. Some classes take more skill
than others, sure, but ALL CLASSES TAKE SKILL TO BE GOOD
AT.
I have read about 40 threads since i got on here, and EVERY one
is about "OMG QQ RET KILLED ME" or "SRZ ROGUES OP MAN". You are
not showing any mathematical/logical reasoning behind your
claims. Also, blizzard is not going to balance the game from a
few claims by players in the 1000-1500 bracket. That is just a
starting point for arena...they balance pvp around the 1700+
players that actually have logical problems with certain
classes.
On that note, if you are paying $15 a month for this game, and
all it does is cause you grief, take a chill pill, perhaps a
break for a month or so.
GC does nothing but put up with all your crap to try to calm
you all down. In all seriousness, all of these threads must
drive him insane. I am actually willing to pay for thrapy
sessions for this poor guy. TAKE IT EASY ALL OF YOU.
|
05/22/09 02:52:05 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
what do you think GC is gonna read this and say "OMG THIS GUY
IS RIGHT I NEED THERAPY NOW!"
No, I'm good. Gin in the coffee mug, my friend. Solves
everything.
|
05/22/09 05:31:17 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
what's worse is spending time having to come on here to try
to find valuable new information on my class.. then all I see
are joke posts by gc
Dear Aurá , of the maybe dozen posts I made today, I
don’t think one silly one that took almost no effort is
going to waste anyone’s time too much. On the contrary,
it appears a few players appreciated the attempt at humor.
I’m surprised you would look at a thread with a title
like this one in your quest for new information. These forums
can be so serious and negative sometimes that we have no
problem with the occasional light-hearted thread so long as it
doesn’t get out of control.
Q u o t e:
Nice suckup. If GC ever tires of listening to us, his
customers, he needs to find another job.
Forum posters vastly overestimate their ability to get under my
skin. On the other hand, we do want to attract intelligent and
mature players to post here. When we ask you to restrict the
amount of junk you post, it’s because we don’t want
to chase them away. We understand that some of our players like
to resolve their differences with the equivalent of a sixth
grade shouting match over who is more leet. Fortunately not
many of them do.
Q u o t e:
And I like how in a GC post in the warrior forums goes on to
say that "the 6% from 2h spec would not have done
anything."
Really? Dropping a FLAT 6% would do nothing for fury
warriors?
Really?
A curious phenomenon in our language is that if you remove
words from sentences it can change their meaning.
I said that the location of 2H Spec in the tree has no bearing
on whether the TG talent is overpowered. Moving 2H Spec was a
strategy the community came up to attempt to barter for TG not
to be nerfed. Moving 2H Spec didn’t accomplish what we
wanted to accomplish. I never said it wouldn’t do
anything for Fury warriors.
A strategy I have also noticed from players who don’t
like design changes is to insult the developers instead of
trying to present a logical counter to the design decision. The
personal attacks never work in helping them get their way, but
maybe it helps players blow off steam or something because they
keep trying it. :)
Q u o t e:
I pay $15 a month to play this game, and if GC can't handle
intelligent Input, then i think that he needs to find a
different job. so long as i'm playing this game, i'm going to
have input. for my part, i try to make it as constructive as
possible in the rare hope that one of the Devs will decide to
rip my idea and use as his own. if you don't want dissent
from the customers, abolish the forums.
WoW prospered for years before I started posting here. These
forums are not customer service forums where you get to tell me
what you think of the job we’re doing. They are for
discussions of WoW’s classes. As a general rule, almost
any time you are mentioning Blizzard or the devs you are not
talking about the classes themselves.
Q u o t e:
As a representative of a multi-billion dollar company
interacting with its CONSUMER-BASE, you'd think he'd use a
little more tact.
Hadafhang, you should chill a little imho. I’ve been
doing this long enough to know that the players generally
appreciate talking to someone who communicates like a gamer and
not like a public relations bot.
I’m a game designer and I’m in here to solicit
feedback, answer questions and ask some of my own. We ask a
little more of players who participate in these role forums.
I’m here to debate some complex and sometimes
controversial topics. While I do attempt to remain professional
in the face of players who often seem to feel as if they should
not be bound by such limitations, I’m not much for
coddling. If my lack of tact bothers you, there are plenty of
other forums on our site into which I do not stray. But I take
class design very seriously, and I am going to be present in
the role forums. Buckle up. :)
[ Post edited by
Ghostcrawler ]
|
05/23/09 12:32:31 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
I have noticed a strategy by blue posters to duck logical
arguments that counter design decisions by claiming every
post is 'hostile', or act as if no logical argument was
made.
That's pretty demonstrably false. Players disagree with us all
the time. You can't lump in criticism and insults together.
They are not the same thing. We have no problem with
criticism.
Q u o t e:
Fury warrior's have been harping on 2hWS so much because it
would accomplish lowering Fury dps without nerfing the ever
loving dps out of Fury.
Sure it would. But we don't like the change and it doesn't
accomplish what we want. End of story. You can try to convince
us you're wrong, but I would suggest a line of reasoning other
than "Ur dumb."
Q u o t e:
How is it logical to have one nerf completely negate two
other talents that every Fury build has?
It doesn't negate them. If it negated them then your dps would
be lower than if you didn't have the talents at all. I always
have trouble understanding this line of reasoning. I suspect
the real issue is you don't like TG having a penalty at
all.
Q u o t e:
How is it not logical to do what the Warrior Community has
suggested, and move the offending Talent that resides in Arms
our of Fury's reach, therefore accomplishing the task of
lowering Fury dps by lowering its white damage and rage
generation, without throwing all of Fury's dps into the
toilet?
The problem with TG is that it provides too much of a dps
increase for one point. What other talents you can reach or not
reach is irrelevant to that point. We don't want one talent
point to inflate your dps by 20% or more. That sets a really
dangerous precedent, makes other talents seems like a waste,
causes Fury damage to jump enormously as soon as they can reach
that talent and a host of other problems.
Q u o t e:
GC, I know you like to dodge this and dismiss it off hand as
being a useless suggestion because it comes from *shudder*
the community, but you have yet to answer why it would not
work, and why the flat 10% nerf is acceptable when it
directly negates 2 other talents and turns TG from a 1 point
talent into a 9.
TG would probably be a lot better as 10 point talent. The fact
remains: do those other talents improve your dps? Yes. Do they
improve it without TG? Yes. Do they improve it with TG? Yes.
Does equipping a higher item level weapon improve your dps?
Does Titan's Grip somehow negate your equipping that weapon
because of its penalty? No.
Q u o t e:
Just because the community came up with the suggestion does
not mean it is without validity.
Of course not. But the bar is not that the designers implement
all valid suggestions.
Q u o t e:
The reason why Warrior's focus on the 2hWS and removal of TG
nerf so obssessively is because, frankly, we know the Fury
tree is broken, and 1h Fury is dead unless the entire tree is
massively redesigned; something that is not likely to happen
before another expansion, if even then.
We aren't trying to keep 1-handed Fury viable. We aren't trying
to keep two-handed Enhancement viable. We aren't trying to keep
staff-using warriors viable. Just because you can equip
something doesn't mean you have a right to be effective with
it.
Q u o t e:
You can keep dismissing the suggestion, but as long as you
are flip about it instead of offering actual substance in
your refutation, Warriors will continue to push it
forward.
My explanations for the TG nerf have been plentiful, consistent
and widely-documented. You can keep arguing the point if you
want, but you probably need to bring up new issues if you want
to attempt to persuade us.
Q u o t e:
If you want us to move forward then give us a reason to,
otherwise, well, right now the 2hWS swap is entirely logical
in that it would accomplish the goal of moving Fury warriors
from horrible dps to "actually worth taking on a raid" dps,
without moving Warriors to the head of the pack of hybrids
for dps.
We have a different plan for improving dps, one that should
also make the rotation a little cleaner. It's something that
has been suggested on the forums a few times.
|
05/23/09 12:32:40 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Posts like this one are obviously pointless, but also don't
take up much of your time (although if you're clicking on
this, you're clicking on too much.) They're not the problem.
The ones where you do spend a lot of time constructing some
regurgitated rhetoric about how hard it is to balance this
game. I honestly don't understand. I don't understand why you
guys choose to use your time the way that you do. GC, with
the kind of posts that you provide, you need a blog, not a
job as a forum moderator. Oh, and maybe there wouldn't be a
complaint if blizzard would release official info through
something more reliable than week/month old posts that don't
get stickied.
I'm here to communicate with players. That's a two-way street.
I don't need a platform like a blog to dispense our game
philosophy (or I would have made one). I'm not here just to do
an extended Q&A. However, if that's your thing, the CMs
have specifically asked for questions in the respective class
forums and you can add your own there.
In our book, an answer of "We realize this is a problem, but
the solution is difficult" is perfectly acceptable. It lets
players know that we are working on a solution but explaining
why they haven't seen it yet.
Q u o t e:
Come on, do you really think you have excuses for the way
this expansion turned out? It's a failure. You haven't
achieved half of the goals you set out to achieve. Arena is
not competitive. Wintergrasp doesn't work. Arena and PvE gear
hasn't approached acceptable balance levels. There's no
tightness in tuning. There are no classes that aren't in need
of, at least, a few show stopping fixes, that have no planned
release.
The expansion turned out great. You're entitled to your opinion
of course, though it would be more helpful if you added more
detail other than "I don't like this." The current Arena season
is in a lot better shape than the previous one, which was the
first one to come after so many class and item changes.
Wintergrasp is so popular that we're trying to get it a little
less crowded. I'm sorry you think classes have show stopping
fixes. As I often say, we don't ever view the game as done, but
we also don't view any of the classes as "sky is falling"
broken.
Q u o t e:
I work at Starbucks, GC can come to my Starbucks any time for
free coffee
Done.
Q u o t e:
As a warrior you'll have to excuse me if I don't take feed
back from a Dev with anything less than a grain of
salt.
Fair enough, but then I am at a bit of a loss as to what you
hope to get from these forums then. Warriors have been a very
dominant PvP class, high on the PvE meters and the only real
tank through much of WoW's history, so I'm not sure why you
feel so beaten up. If you just disagree with our direction for
the class then I guess that makes sense.
|
05/23/09 01:03:05 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
It would be awesome if I could live in the past, but I don't,
I live in the now Classic servers don't exist, and the now
kind of sucks for Warriors in PvE. Outside of the small
resurgence we got in PvP via Juggernaut for Arms while Fury
is once again forgotten. I don't see how being good in the
past is any consolation prize, or why I should feel less
beaten up because of how good I USED to be. =/
I'm not asking you to live in the past. The comment was
essentially that the developers are unreliable when it comes to
warrior balance. Yet warriors have always been strong and were
strong in the previous tier of content for PvE. They are strong
in PvP now yet a little low in PvE, but we've already said we
have upcoming plans to buff them. This is why the howls of
neglect seem to ring a little hollow in our opinion.
|
05/23/09 01:44:30 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
And as such, I would like to see the class given SOME kind of
acknowledgement. Landsoul posted a very thorough topic
supported with YOUR math. It received NO response from YOU
until the last page, because it "was only getting bumped." No
answer from you or any Blue. Nothing.
You should never post anything with the expectation of getting
a blue post. We physically can't and socially aren't interested
in responding to every post, even the good ones. Landsoul is a
smart guy and we respect his opinion a lot. But the thread was
out of control and we feared warriors who said "Oh wow a long
thread," would read it and form the conclusion "Man, these
forums suck. Nothing in here but bumping."
Q u o t e:
Now all of a sudden Arms and Fury is getting SLIGHT buffs?
NOW??? Using YOUR MATH Landsoul, whom you KNOW of, and others
showed that Fury was gonna drop like a rock. Everything that
is applied to a Fury warrior is effectively reduced by 10%.
10% is 10% any way you look at it. And the nerf was TOO
steep.
Fury didn't drop like a rock. You can only make those
conclusions if you are comparing warriors to previous patches
where they could challenge rogues for top melee dps. They are a
little low now, but only a little low in our opinion, and we're
bringing them up.
Q u o t e:
Your words. But you posted in TWO threads that were intended
to illicit a response from you. Even though there is a STICKY
at the top of the page saying NOT to "fish" for responses and
people get REPORTED for it.
Part of the reason we ask for players not to make "GC post
here" threads is because sometimes they are very good threads,
and then we feel obligated to ignore them because they broke
the rules. Just avoid doing it and everything will work out
better.
Q u o t e:
You want to know why I'm salty? Stupid idiotic posts get some
kind of attention from you while one of the FEW good posts
gets locked with nothing more than "Thanks for
posting"?????
It wasn't a good thread though. It had a very insightful first
post with like a dozen pages of warriors saying "Bump for blue
response." I read all of it and that is 20 minutes or whatever
of my life that I could have spent on other threads. The same
goes true for everyone who reads these forums. How many players
do you think we have already conditioned to think "There's
never anything good beyond the first page of a thread"? That's
sad. :(
We reserve the right to judge what is a "stupid idiotic" post
or not. The community will never agree and will typically only
insist that "buff my class" threads are the deserving ones.
Again, this system will just work out better if you don't try
and steer us -- don't beat us up for posting in threads you
don't like or on topics that don't interest you and don't beat
us up when we don't post in good threads. Often the good
threads get ruined by the attention that a blue post brings,
and I certainly hope you're not saying that a thread without a
blue response can never be a blue thread.
Q u o t e:
What I cannot understand is this. Since WotLK beta, warriors
have told YOU the problems with TG. 1st the haste reduction.
Didn't pan out did it? Same thing with the hit reduction.
That got dropped didn't it? And now we have the -10% damage.
How'd that work out?
We're happy with the damage reduction. The haste and hit
reductions had other problems. Since TG adds too much damage,
taking some away seems like the right choice. It's an unusual
talent; it's unfortunate but not too surprising that it has
taken some time to get right. Warriors were doing too much
damage in Naxx (and not just on gimmick fights and not just
when fully geared). Some warriors are used to doing rogue
damage, but that's not our design any longer.
Q u o t e:
I am angry because warrior "figure heads" have shown you time
and again when something won't work or will not get the
desired effect. They are largely ignored and whatever YOUR
agenda is, is pushed forward. And when it is proven to show
that it will not work OR will not get the desired effect, a
change is made that was SUGGESTED before you decided to go
forward with your original design.
Of course we have our own agenda for how classes should work
out. It's our game and we have a vision for it. We listen to
smart warriors like we listen to smart players of all classes.
Sometimes we agree with them and sometimes we don't. I hope you
don't get frustrated just because we don't implement all of the
suggestions that come our way. Some are honestly bad
suggestions. Some are too hard to implement. Some are good
suggestions but go against our vision for the game.
Q u o t e:
But please do not try to make it as though OUR input has any
meaningful impact on it.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but players who have been on these
boards for very long know it's not true. We very much liked one
of Landsoul's suggestions. It happens.
|
05/23/09 05:30:07 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
So initially you claimed that Blizzard was "fine" with how
strong TG was for one point, yet YOU did post this and now
suddenly you don't like how much power a single point might
give. And yet it's perfectly acceptable for Rogues to have a
talent that offers just as much power for one point?
Double-standards much, or did you leave out the word
"Warrior" when describing talent value?
This is a line of reasoning we have all been down before. If
Titan's Grip is something you're interested in, then I'm
surprised you aren't familiar with it.
It's not acceptable for rogues or anyone to have so much power
in one talent point. We have said pretty consistently that we
don't want Hunger for Blood to remain in its current
incarnation long term, however it solves the problem for now of
keeping Assassination viable in PvE without it being
overpowered in PvP. Other fixes would involve major changes to
the rogue tree that would likely cause other issues we'd then
have to solve. It's too big a risk when what we have works...
for now. We have a long list of things we want to improve in
the game. HfB is just one of them.
Q u o t e:
Just the other day you made some glib remark about "skipping
over the QQ", which in your job is a pretty big slap in the
face to people taking the time and effort to post
constructive criticism of game mechanics that don't often
make sense.
I don't skip over constructive criticism. I skip over QQ, which
I generally define as posts whose contribution is stuff like
"We're terrible, Blizzard hates us, we're neglected, I don't
like being nerfed," and so on. Most players can tell the
difference. Re-read before you post. Ask yourself if other
players will learn anything or stop to think about what you
said. If not, then it may be your comments aren't really
contributing to the conversation.
|
05/24/09 09:56:04 AM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Does this mean you're going to remove Crusader Strike, Divine
Storm, Explosive Shot, Mutilate...
Obviously not. Is the perceived problem because TG is
passive?
That is part of it, yes. All of the active abilities have some
kind of cost, even if it's just a GCD. If you weren't spending
rage on Mortal Strike or mana on Crusader Strike, you'd be
spending it somewhere else. A passive talent that improves dps
in almost all situations and requires almost no action or
decision on the part of the player is incredibly risky.
Really though, I don't think any of these discussions are new.
Maybe I just spend more time reading forums that many of the
players, but these have all been issues that we have discussed
over and over. Some players just want Titan's Grip to not have
a penalty and some want warriors to be balanced as if they were
pure dps classes. I'm not sure any amount of explanation on our
part is going to solve the problem that if you were designing
the class you'd want to do it differently. But we'll keep
trying. :)
|
05/24/09 11:28:56 AM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
GC you may have thought of this but I gotta say it anyway,
did you ever think about buffing Deep Wounds by a couple
percent weapon damage to increase the PvE damage of both Arms
and Fury? Seems like a bandaid fix and does nothing for the
faceroll boring'ness of Fury but would be relatively painless
, quick and easy I'd assume.
Deep Wounds isn't passive but it's very close. You don't go out
of your way really to get Deep Wounds up on a player or mob.
You don't change your strategy. Good warriors don't max out
their Deep Wounds much more than other players.
Q u o t e:
Or, if you still really feel that TG is such a problem, why
not make it a 5 point talent again and swap it with Unending
Fury, making it a one point talent? Or add some sacrifice to
TG, like the ability to go into any other stance but Zerker
(lol).
The problem with TG as a five-point talent is that it doesn't
divide evenly by five. You can't say "Makes you 20% able to
wield two two-handers" at rank one. That means inevitably one
rank of the talent is worth a lot more than the others and
we've had trouble any time talents are structured that
way.
Q u o t e:
There just seems like there are many other options than just
saying OK lets give them this cool talent but then nerf it to
the ground and make fury warriors feel pretty crappy with
junk utility and less-than-optimal DPS compared to a pure
class that you might as well bring because your utility is
already overwritten by the paladin and feral druids.
TG isn't nerfed into the ground though. Players occasionally
try to show how it's a dps loss, but they have failed every
attempt I have seen. If the talent improves your dps by 25% and
then the 10% penalty lowers than benefit by 15% (including rage
loss) then it's still giving you a 10% dps boost, which is
about ten times higher than we shoot for with one talent
point.
Q u o t e:
I tend to agree with the poster far above about how our
utility is rather.... not very... useful? And that warriors
dont bring anything that isnt overwritten AND done better by
another class. Kinda like hunter pets giving 10% AP for a
short duration on a long cooldown. Tacked on and only useful
if there's absolutely no one else around to give it.
This is a totally different topic on a thread that has already
gone pretty off topic. I'll just say that lots of classes feel
that they don't bring something special enough, and in most
cases, this is by design. We don't want anyone to get brought
along because their bonus is so indespensible. On the other
hand, we are looking at those situations where another class
just totally trumps the benefits you do bring and we are
getting those adjusted over time.
|
05/24/09 01:32:25 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
The reason I don't like this statement is because it seems to
be okay for other classes, but not warriors. What kind've
damage increase is the shaman Dual Wield talent? Or the
priest Shadowform talent?
Shadowform works because it carries a pretty amazing penalty
with it. It would be hard to say what the dps increase of the
shaman DW talent is since so much of the rest of their tree
supports that play style. (It can be done, just with more
effort than I'm able to spend at the moment.)
Q u o t e:
The reason Titan's Grip is brought up so much is because you
have not actually discussed anything about it. You've simply
repeated the "It's too much for one talent point" mantra ad
nauseum as well as claiming "if Warrior DPS is too low we'll
fix it". Which none of us really believe. You were shown all
through the PTR how abysmal it was and as par for the course
you also harped "our internal numbers and feelings...". You
pretty much disregarded all of the data in front of you and
now you're slowly coming around to all but admitting that
Blizzard was wrong...again. You apparently did not have the
time to thoroughly research your committee dice rolling
number and it shows, and thought -10% looked like a good
enough of a "fix" in the same way +15% for Rogues was
perfectly fine "for now" (aka: the next six to nine
months).
I feel like we've discussed it plently. I think the real issue
is you just don't like our explanations. But if you have
specific issues you want to bring up, feel free. I'm not going
to go into another explanation of why we don't always accept
the community's data as perfect. We balance the game, not the
community.
Q u o t e:
You've also retracted the statement about pures and hybrids
actually being competitive in specific situations with one
another. You obviously don't care about that anymore and are
satisfied with the hierarchy of Rogue <> Death Knight
>>> Warlocks, Mages, Hunters, Druids, Shamans,
Priests, Paladins > Warriors. You know the proof is in the
pudding, but who honestly expects any upcoming Warrior, Death
Knight or Paladin changes to actually be noticeable?
Our stance hasn't changed since Lich King. Originally (pre-LK)
we tried to keep hybrid specs at 40% or more behind the pure
damage-dealers, but then we also treated warriors as pure
damage-dealers. If you really know your class, and I mean
really know it, and if you have good gear, the right buffs, and
a group that backs you up, then you are fully capable of
topping the damage meters on certain fights. Overall we do want
to make sure the pure dps classes are slightly higher when all
things are equal, otherwise there is no point to those entire
classes existing. Do warriors beat mages on some fights?
Absolutely. What's the issue?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with that last part. Ret
paladins were not a serious raiding option for many players
pre-LK. Now they certainly are.
Q u o t e:
Lol, you were told all through the beta how to make it
divisible by five, especially when it had the old haste
penalty attatched. Is it truly that hard to understadnd -40%
speed, -30% speed, -20% speed, -10% speed, no speed penalty?
Damn, looks like a five point talent to me that still makes
using two two-handed weapons completely workable with it's
initial point.
You can lol about how clever your solution is, but I suspect
plenty of players will disagree with you. For starters, getting
a single point in the talent is worth infinitely more than the
subsequent talents that follow it.
Q u o t e:
What if you make it a five point talent, keep the penalty for
the first point and then reduce by 1% or such for each
respective point until the last point is between a 0 and 1%
dmg reduction? Seems like it could work to me.
If you were around through beta, we tried that. Not many
players liked it. May took a single point in TG and then spent
other points elsewhere.
|
05/24/09 01:41:05 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
The SD nerf wasn't tested and made arms damage terrible,
although it was never amazing. The fury nerf didn't seem to
take into account rage lost and so it put our damage too low.
You can deny that but testing of Naxx25 BiS warriors was way
below other classes (other than ret pallies), rets got buffed
and warriors got ignored. You can say you don't balance
around full BiS, but Naxx BIS is the sort of stats you should
have halfway through Ulduar to progress.
I guess I'll give up on this argument. We have convered all of
these points before and most warriors who have been on these
forums for long know that. When you make up facts it just takes
too much effort for me to go line by line and counter them
all.
Q u o t e:
The SD nerf wasn't tested and made arms damage terrible,
although it was never amazing.
Sudden Death was too RNG in its previous incarnation. Many Arms
warrirors didn't even like it.
Q u o t e:
The fury nerf didn't seem to take into account rage lost and
so it put our damage too low.
The TG nerf took lost rage into account. This was a myth
started by warriors who didn't like the change.
Q u o t e:
You can deny that but testing of Naxx25 BiS warriors was way
below other classes
Naxx warrior damage was too high. If it is slightly low now
(which we think it is), that doesn't make the former
untrue.
Q u o t e:
You can say you don't balance around full BiS, but Naxx BIS
is the sort of stats you should have halfway through Ulduar
to progress.
We don't balance just around best in slot because so few
players will ever be at that point, and by the time they are,
the content is usually on farm for them. You don't need best in
slot to make progress in Ulduar and by the time you are halfway
through Ulduar you probably have added a lot of Ulduar
gear.
If warriors want to bring up some new thoughts or insights into
the tree or even Titan's Grip, I'll entertain those. But we are
just spending too much time in this thread reiterating points
we've made many times before and which you'll apparently never
believe anyway. I could spend my time talking to other classes
about their issues.
[ Post edited by
Ghostcrawler ]
|
05/24/09 01:59:25 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Sorry, I was not here for beta, I am also relatively new to
the forums and don't know much of the goings on here. But
(and this might be what you said you were going to buff later
on) what if we get some other talent like an improved Titans
Grip with the same effect somewhere else in the tree that
does something similar. While players might still put points
elsewhere, IMO if other talents are good enough to make them
want those other than TG with no penalty, I think those other
talents need to be looked at instead.
Edit: I am not a warrior nor do I have much experience
playing one, so my feedback my not be as
"researched"as others, I am just throwing ideas out
there.
That's cool and I don't mean to imply you need to be a
long-time poster to contribute here.
I was reacting mostly against this notion that we didn't
explore obvious alternatives before arriving at the current
implementation. Your post didn't specifically say that, but a
lot of this thread has been of the form "GC hates us because he
[hasn't answered questions that I've answered] or [didn't
consider alternatives that we'd considered] or [doesn't spend
time answering issues which I've answered before]."
Bottom line: if everyone lost the antagonistic bent and the
occasional sense of entitlement, these forums would be a lot
more pleasant for everyone. :)
|
05/25/09 03:08:01 PM
Patch 3.1.2
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
You say TG was too powerful for 1 talent. However in another
post you contradict the point here saying "we dont intend on
1h fury to be viable". I find those 2 really confusing.
Reason to not have a talent be too powerful is to keep some
balance and CHOICE. Obviously if a talent is too powerful it
becomes a must-have, and not a talent anymore. Thats clear
enough. However in the 2nd part you basically say - "We
intend to FORCE every fury warrior into picking TG". If so,
then how does it matter what dps increase TG provides? If
fury tree design is BASED on the RULE "If you take more then
20 points in fury , you WILL take TG", then whether the
talent gives 5 or 500% damage increase becomes irrelevant
right?
No, it doesn't become irrelevant, at least in our minds. Here
are a few of the problems you run into when some talents are
enormously more powerful than others:
1) The talents that "only" provide a 1 or 5% dps increase are
viewed as garbage. Players might skip them. They might make the
rest of the tree feel lame, which risks players not finding the
tree very fun. Think about it this way: if your breastplate had
500 strength on it and your bracers had 10 strength on them,
would you even care about the bracers? Would you campaign to
get them buffed? Would you make "Lol nobody cares about
bracers" posts.
2) Other classes wonder why their 51 point talent can't provide
such an enormous benefit. They think warriors are overly
favored or that developers didn't spend much attention on their
trees. Now, we ignore QQ as much as we can, but also ideally
players are excited about their classes, and ignoring even a
hint of favoritism can go a long way. Despite our best
intentions, talents still have grown more and more powerful
over time. Compare an old talent like Improved Heroic Strike to
a new one like Fire and Brimstone. We want to keep the
inflation under control while possible, or +10% becomes the new
standard by which talents are measured.
3) Power increase isn't constant. When you can suddenly get
your 51 point talent, your dps shoots up enormously. A level 60
warrior could do much, much higher dps than a level 59
warrior.
4) Here is the most important one. We thing the game works
better when talents don't make up too large of a player's power
allocation. It makes gear drop feel cruddy when so much of your
power comes from talent allocation. It makes enchants,
tradeskills, buffs and other parts of the game feel paltry by
comparison because you are so powerful just by a passive
increase to your talents. It means picking the "wrong" spec is
brutal instead of just sub-optimal.
Now there are other considerations of course. In the case for
Hunger for Blood, we think having an overpowered talent is
preferable to the alternative. There are talents like Ruin that
provide an enormous dps increase and we live with that. (And to
be fair, Titan's Grip is still overpowered even with the 10%
penalty but it's less overpowered than without the penalty.) If
we could find no other way to improve Fury dps, then I'm sure
we'd look at TG. But there's a lot of the tree we can imrpove.
|
Blue colored topics are started by Blizzard Posters.
Topics are sorted descending based on their last update (last blue post) time.
You can find links to the orignal posts in the top-right corner of each post.
Update frequency is ~3 minutes.
Stats can be found here
|
|
